HAWKS VS. DOVES: AN AMERICAN DIVIDE In the realm of American foreign policy, there have always been two basic categories that have dominated the political discourse: hawks and doves. The groups known as ”hawks” tend to favor more forceful coercive action and response to events. They tend to distrust diplomacy and concession, and they are more willing to advocate military force. The group known as "doves" are more inclined to view dialogue and political solutions as the way out of conflict and tension. The same categories apply to certain news organizations that have a “hawkish” bias. These news organizations tend to be considered "conservative" and more supportive of the leaders and policies associated with the Republican Party. News organizations identified as having a more "liberal" or "dovish” take on events are viewed to be more sympathetic to the leadership of the Democratic Party. In the last twenty years, even though technology and the news media have been revolutionized, the advent of internet blogging and cable news has done little to change the division of foreign policy “talking heads” between hawks and doves. To the contrary, it has only intensified the debate between them, highlighting their philosophical differences.
Now let us take a closer look at the different types of Hawks and Doves and their biases towards three main issues that are present in our world today: the relationship between the Obama Administration and Israeli president Netanyahu's government, The Iranian Nuclear program, and The War On Terror (focusing mostly on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq).
The Nation.
Hawks/Doves view on Obama/Netanyahu as portrayed by the media.
Dove: Special Relationships David Remnick, The New Yorker
March 29, 2010
In the article "Special Relationships", David Remnick acts as ‘dove’ towards the American Government on one hand while striking at the Israeli apparent ‘misconception’ towards Obama. Remnick goes about describing the Israeli attitude towards the two previous presidents, describing how Israel was convinced of Clinton’s capacity to ‘reconcile a deep admiration for Israel with a desire to end the occupation of the conquered territories and the suffering of the Palestinians.’ He also later describes how the Israeli’s appreciated George W. Bush for his unquestioning embrace. Remnick uses the examples of the previous presidents to compare how the Israeli’s feel towards Obama, who ‘has no special feeling for [Israel]’. political cartoon depicting the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu. picture 1
The bias towards the US can be seen later in the article when Remnick describes how the Israeli’s don’t appreciate Obama’s ‘indifference to Israel’. Remnick covers all of his bases by clearly stating that Obama was surrounded by Jewish advisors, colleagues, and the fact that he won 78% of the Jewish vote. Remnick is clearly defending Obama while attacking Netanyahu’s government that is suffering from a ‘troubling degree of instability’. The statement made by Netanyahu’s brother in law, calling President Obama an ‘anti-Semite’ and the personal attack on Netanyahu by stating that he is the ‘arrogant rejectionist’ seals Remnick’s biased towards the American president and against the Israeli government.
The Weekley Standard and Fox News are two news agencies that would agree with Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol.
Hawk: The Biden incident Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
March 19, 2010
In the Article “Why did President Obama Choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S-Israeli relations?”, the bias is simply glaring. It almost seems as if Krauthammer goes on a rant about how the whole situation was aggravated by the United States Government. VP Biden (left) Netanyahu (right), picture 2.
During the large majority of the rest of the article, Charles Krauthammer is heroically defending the standpoint of the Israeli people. He does this by using very strong and negative language such as ‘the administration went nuclear’ and ‘a hostile and highly aggressive…unprecedented crises’ directed towards the United States, while lovingly draping the image of Israel with words to pity and sympathy, “remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer”. The light in which he sheds Israel shows outright bias towards the situation that Israel faces.
There is one last point that is astoundingly biased. Krauthammer makes references to the fact that Palestine continuously rejects peace offers and how, Krauthammer almost mockingly states, ‘ the Obama administration has to resort to “proximity talks”’. There is no doubt that Krauthammer intends to use this statement to cause more anger towards the Palestinians.
Hawks: “And Now Iran” Weekly Standard, William Kristol January 23, 2006 “Resignation” Weekly Standard, William Kristol April 19, 2010 In his editorial “And Now Iran,” William Kristol suggests that foreign policy doves “profess concern” about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power by endorsing various diplomatic actions. However, doves refuse to even contemplate the possibility of military action. Kristol argues that the only way diplomatic, political, and economic pressures have a chance to work is if the U.S. convinces Iran it is seriously considering a military option. His language suggests weakness when discussing diplomacy and associates a position of strength with the military option. Kristol mocks doves as “cooing” about sanctions, as well as hawks’ hoping that Israel will “take care of the problem,” as being “escapist.” He even criticizes some hawks for not wanting to be engaged militarily on two fronts in Iraq and Iran. Kristol believes that President George W. Bush also disagreed with both groups and would have preferred that the military option remain on the table.
Four years later, with a new President and a new party in power, William Kristol in his April 19, 2010 editorial, paints President Obama as weak and accuses the President of resigning himself to a nuclear Iran, even though George W. Bush neither went ahead with a military option nor allowed Israel to carry out the attack. Kristol, once again, points out that “finger wagging” of the international community will not force Iran to comply and suggests that the Obama administration’s recent turn against Israel is an attempt to pressure Israel not to attack Iran.
Doves: “Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran” The New York Times, Thomas Friedman April 19, 2006 “Cracks in Iran’s Clique” The New York Times, Thomas Friedman September 22, 2009
In 2006, Thomas Friedman, took the opposite view of William Kristol, in his editorial, “Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran,” and unequivocally stated that he would rather live with a nuclear Iran than consider a military option to disarm Iran. He based argument on the lack of confidence that he had in the Bush administration’s ability to manage a complex military strike. Whereas a hawkish editorial paints a Democratic president as being weak, a dovish or liberal editorial presents President George W. Bush’s administration as incompetent as “drunken drivers.” Friedman’s choice was clear. If the choice was another “Rummy-led operation” on Iran or Iran going nuclear, Friedman preferred diplomacy and deterrence, which are considered weak and ineffective options according to the hawks.
Revisiting the same issue three years later, Thomas Friedman, in his 2009 editorial, “Cracks in Iran’s Clique,” advised President Obama to “keep alive the prospect that Israel could do something crazy.” He advocated negotiations and sanctions, but warned that “negotiating with such a regime without the reality of sanctions and the possibility of force is like playing baseball without a bat.” This is advice is drastically different from the advice he gave a more conservative and hawkish president.
HAWKS AND DOVES ON THE WAR ON TERROR Hawks: Afghanistan war: Marjah battle as tough as Fallujah, say US troops
Julius Cavendish,
The Christian Science Monitor
February 14, 2010
Cavendish’s article is pretty positive on the war in Afghanistan, particularly with the invasion on Marjah that was conducted on February 14, 2010. He glorifies the American and Afghan troops by listing all of the obstacles that they had to overcome, “ fierce sniper fire and even greater numbers of home-made bombs, booby traps, and minefields than anticipated.” Marine during the battle of Marjah, picture 3a.
He also shows the experience of the American soldiers by noting that some soldiers were reminded of the fierce fighting when taking Fallujah. Cavendish again uses the idea of glorification by describing the taking of Fallujah as the ‘storming’ of Fallujah. The intended image of victorious American soldiers walking amidst chaos is invoked in the minds of the readers.
Another sign of Cavendish’s almost childish approval is when he describes Marjah as ‘their biggest stronghold’ and when describing US General Stanley McChrystal’s campaign as ‘reinvigorated’.
Also, Cavendish is glorifying the troops even more by noting that only 12 civilians were killed and that only two troops, ‘one American, one British’ had been killed in the fighting.
Doves: “Two Wrongs Make Another Fiasco” The New York Times, Frank Rich October 11, 2009
Frank Rich strikes a note of indignation when he frames the Afghanistan debate as one that is run by “the ravings of the unrepentant blunderers who dug us into this hole in the first place.” He squarely puts the blame on the hawkish policies of the Bush administration having engaged in two wars,
Iraq and Afghanistan. Rich accuses those who demand that the Obama administration increase the level of troops in Afghanistan to be the same hawks who insisted that the war on terror should be fought in Iraq, when it should have been fought in Afghanistan. These were the same misguided hawks who were unaware that the war on terror had shifted to Pakistan. Rich’s language does not hide his disdain for the intellectual inferiority of the hawks and their “shameless” arrogance. Rich argues that “when the day comes for them to anoint Pakistan as the central front, it will be proof positive that Al Queda has consolidated its hold on Somalia and Yemen.” He stops short of calling them cowards, who rely on “rhetorical sleights of hand” and “avoid defining the real cost” of war.
HAWKS VS. DOVES: AN AMERICAN DIVIDE
In the realm of American foreign policy, there have always been two basic categories that have dominated the political discourse: hawks and doves. The groups known as ”hawks” tend to favor more forceful coercive action and response to events. They tend to distrust diplomacy and concession, and they are more willing to advocate military force. The group known as "doves" are more inclined to view dialogue and political solutions as the way out of conflict and tension. The same categories apply to certain news organizations that have a “hawkish” bias. These news organizations tend to be considered "conservative" and more supportive of the leaders and policies associated with the Republican Party. News organizations identified as having a more "liberal" or "dovish” take on events are viewed to be more sympathetic to the leadership of the Democratic Party. In the last twenty years, even though technology and the news media have been revolutionized, the advent of internet blogging and cable news has done little to change the division of foreign policy “talking heads” between hawks and doves. To the contrary, it has only intensified the debate between them, highlighting their philosophical differences.
Now let us take a closer look at the different types of Hawks and Doves and their biases towards three main issues that are present in our world today: the relationship between the Obama Administration and Israeli president Netanyahu's government, The Iranian Nuclear program, and The War On Terror (focusing mostly on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq).
Hawks/Doves view on Obama/Netanyahu as portrayed by the media.
Dove:
Special Relationships
David Remnick, The New Yorker
March 29, 2010
In the article "Special Relationships", David Remnick acts as ‘dove’ towards the American Government on one hand while striking at the Israeli apparent ‘misconception’ towards Obama. Remnick goes about describing the Israeli attitude towards the two previous presidents, describing how Israel was convinced of Clinton’s capacity to ‘reconcile a deep admiration for Israel with a desire to end the occupation of the conquered territories and the suffering of the Palestinians.’ He also later describes how the Israeli’s appreciated George W. Bush for his unquestioning embrace. Remnick uses the examples of the previous presidents to compare how the Israeli’s feel towards Obama, who ‘has no special feeling for [Israel]’.
The bias towards the US can be seen later in the article when Remnick describes how the Israeli’s don’t appreciate Obama’s ‘indifference to Israel’. Remnick covers all of his bases by clearly stating that Obama was surrounded by Jewish advisors, colleagues, and the fact that he won 78% of the Jewish vote. Remnick is clearly defending Obama while attacking Netanyahu’s government that is suffering from a ‘troubling degree of instability’. The statement made by Netanyahu’s brother in law, calling President Obama an ‘anti-Semite’ and the personal attack on Netanyahu by stating that he is the ‘arrogant rejectionist’ seals Remnick’s biased towards the American president and against the Israeli government.
The Weekley Standard and Fox News are two news agencies that would agree with Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol.
Hawk:
The Biden incident
Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
March 19, 2010
In the Article “Why did President Obama Choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S-Israeli relations?”, the bias is simply glaring. It almost seems as if Krauthammer goes on a rant about how the whole situation was aggravated by the United States Government.
During the large majority of the rest of the article, Charles Krauthammer is heroically defending the standpoint of the Israeli people. He does this by using very strong and negative language such as ‘the administration went nuclear’ and ‘a hostile and highly aggressive…unprecedented crises’ directed towards the United States, while lovingly draping the image of Israel with words to pity and sympathy, “remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer”. The light in which he sheds Israel shows outright bias towards the situation that Israel faces.
There is one last point that is astoundingly biased. Krauthammer makes references to the fact that Palestine continuously rejects peace offers and how, Krauthammer almost mockingly states, ‘ the Obama administration has to resort to “proximity talks”’. There is no doubt that Krauthammer intends to use this statement to cause more anger towards the Palestinians.
Hawks:
“And Now Iran”
Weekly Standard, William Kristol
January 23, 2006
“Resignation”
Weekly Standard, William Kristol
April 19, 2010
In his editorial “And Now Iran,” William Kristol suggests that foreign policy doves “profess concern” about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power by endorsing various diplomatic actions. However, doves refuse to even contemplate the possibility of military action. Kristol argues that the only way diplomatic, political, and economic pressures have a chance to work is if the U.S. convinces Iran it is seriously considering a military option. His language suggests weakness when discussing diplomacy and associates a position of strength with the military option. Kristol mocks doves as “cooing” about sanctions, as well as hawks’ hoping that Israel will “take care of the problem,” as being “escapist.” He even criticizes some hawks for not wanting to be engaged militarily on two fronts in Iraq and Iran. Kristol believes that President George W. Bush also disagreed with both groups and would have preferred that the military option remain on the table.
Four years later, with a new President and a new party in power, William Kristol in his April 19, 2010 editorial, paints President Obama as weak and accuses the President of resigning himself to a nuclear Iran, even though George W. Bush neither went ahead with a military option nor allowed Israel to carry out the attack. Kristol, once again, points out that “finger wagging” of the international community will not force Iran to comply and suggests that the Obama administration’s recent turn against Israel is an attempt to pressure Israel not to attack Iran.
Doves:
“Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran”
The New York Times, Thomas Friedman
April 19, 2006
“Cracks in Iran’s Clique”
The New York Times, Thomas Friedman
September 22, 2009
In 2006, Thomas Friedman, took the opposite view of William Kristol, in his editorial, “Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran,” and unequivocally stated that he would rather live with a nuclear Iran than consider a military option to disarm Iran. He based argument on the lack of confidence that he had in the Bush administration’s ability to manage a complex military strike. Whereas a hawkish editorial paints a Democratic president as being weak, a dovish or liberal editorial presents President George W. Bush’s administration as incompetent as “drunken drivers.” Friedman’s choice was clear. If the choice was another “Rummy-led operation” on Iran or Iran going nuclear, Friedman preferred diplomacy and deterrence, which are considered weak and ineffective options according to the hawks.
Revisiting the same issue three years later, Thomas Friedman, in his 2009 editorial, “Cracks in Iran’s Clique,” advised President Obama to “keep alive the prospect that Israel could do something crazy.” He advocated negotiations and sanctions, but warned that “negotiating with such a regime without the reality of sanctions and the possibility of force is like playing baseball without a bat.” This is advice is drastically different from the advice he gave a more conservative and hawkish president.
HAWKS AND DOVES ON THE WAR ON TERROR
Hawks:
Afghanistan war: Marjah battle as tough as Fallujah, say US troops
Julius Cavendish,
The Christian Science Monitor
February 14, 2010
Cavendish’s article is pretty positive on the war in Afghanistan, particularly with the invasion on Marjah that was conducted on February 14, 2010. He glorifies the American and Afghan troops by listing all of the obstacles that they had to overcome, “ fierce sniper fire and even greater numbers of home-made bombs, booby traps, and minefields than anticipated.”
He also shows the experience of the American soldiers by noting that some soldiers were reminded of the fierce fighting when taking Fallujah. Cavendish again uses the idea of glorification by describing the taking of Fallujah as the ‘storming’ of Fallujah. The intended image of victorious American soldiers walking amidst chaos is invoked in the minds of the readers.
Another sign of Cavendish’s almost childish approval is when he describes Marjah as ‘their biggest stronghold’ and when describing US General Stanley McChrystal’s campaign as ‘reinvigorated’.
Also, Cavendish is glorifying the troops even more by noting that only 12 civilians were killed and that only two troops, ‘one American, one British’ had been killed in the fighting.
Doves:
“Two Wrongs Make Another Fiasco”
The New York Times, Frank Rich
October 11, 2009
Frank Rich strikes a note of indignation when he frames the Afghanistan debate as one that is run by “the ravings of the unrepentant blunderers who dug us into this hole in the first place.” He squarely puts the blame on the hawkish policies of the Bush administration having engaged in two wars,
Iraq and Afghanistan. Rich accuses those who demand that the Obama administration increase the level of troops in Afghanistan to be the same hawks who insisted that the war on terror should be fought in Iraq, when it should have been fought in Afghanistan. These were the same misguided hawks who were unaware that the war on terror had shifted to Pakistan. Rich’s language does not hide his disdain for the intellectual inferiority of the hawks and their “shameless” arrogance. Rich argues that “when the day comes for them to anoint Pakistan as the central front, it will be proof positive that Al Queda has consolidated its hold on Somalia and Yemen.” He stops short of calling them cowards, who rely on “rhetorical sleights of hand” and “avoid defining the real cost” of war.
Bibliography:
Krauthammer, Charles. "The Biden Incident." The Washington Post. March 19, 2010, April 22, 2010
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031802747.html>
Remnick, David. "Special Relationships." The New Yorker, March 29, 2010, April 22, 2010
<http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/03/29/100329taco_talk_remnick>
Carafano, James. "Counting Terrorists: More or Less a Distraction" The Heritage Foundation. October 6, 2006, April 22, 2010
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2006/10/Counting-Terrorists-More-or-Less-a-Distraction>
Kristol, William. “And Now Iran.” WeeklyStandard.com. The Weekly Standard, 23 January 2006. Web. 22 April 2010.
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/585tdlqf.asp
Kristol, William. “Resignation.” WeeklyStandard.com. The Weekly Standard, 19 April 2010. Web. 22 April 2010.
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/resignation>
Kahneman, Daniel. “Why Hawks Win.” ForeignPolicy.com. Foreign Policy Magazine, 27 December 2006. Web. 20 April 2010. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/12/27/why_hawks_win>
Freidman, Thomas L. “Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran?” NewYorkTimes.com. The New York Times, 19 April 2006. Web. 25 April 2010. <http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print>
Freidman, Thomas L. “Cracks in Iran’s Clique.” NewYorkTimes.com. The New York Times, 22 September 2010. Web. 25 April 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/opinion/23friedman.html>
Rich, Frank. “Two Wrongs Make Another Fiasco.” NewYorkTimes.com. The New York Times, 11 October 2009. Web. 25 April 2010.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11rich.html>
Cavendish, Julius. "Afghanistan War: Marjah Battle as tough as Fallujah, say US troops." Csmonitor.com, The Christian Science Monitor, February 14, 2010. April 25, 2010
<http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0214/Afghanistan-war-Marjah-battle-as-tough-as-Fallujah-say-US-troops>
Pictures:
Picture1.
Remnick, David. "Special Relationships." The New Yorker, March 29, 2010, April 22, 2010
<http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/03/29/100329taco_talk_remnick>
Picture2.
Associated Press, Biden: Netanyahu 'Getting older'. Politico.com, March 09, 2010. April 25, 2010
<http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0310/vp_praises_start_to_talks_baf0a355-dd88-451a-8389-06dc00bbcfcc.html>
Picture 3:
Samuelatgilgal. "Ahmadinejad at War with Israel." Photograph. Wordpress. 1 July 2008. Web. April 25, 2010.
<http://samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/ahmadinejad-at-war-with-israel/>
Picture 3a.
Tomasevic, Goran. "Afghanistan War: Marjah offensive is trial run for Kandahar push." Csmonitor, February 23, 2010. April 26, 2010
<http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0223/Afghanistan-war-Marjah-offensive-is-trial-run-for-Kandahar-push>
Picture 4:
politicsofthegrid. Photograph. Wordpress. May 2007. Web. April 25, 2010.
<http://politicsoffthegrid.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/mission_accomplished02-hires.jpg>